■tj1 ■q long-held fears are being realized. the interna has overstepped its authority and set a dangerous precedent by seeking arrest warrantsi prime u and israel's defense minister gallant, alongside hamas terrorists. and i want to be clear, the case against israel is baseless. mr. meeks and i wanted in good faith to make this a bipartisan bill. and i thank him for that. initially the white house supported this idea. however, on may 28, they did 180 degree turn. and in response, even democratic senator carden has criticized the administration saying, "i'm disappointed. i thought they were going to try and work on a bipartisan bill."

and i agree with mr. carden. and i agree with mr. meeks. as we try to make this bipartisan. the united states and israel are not members of the i.c.c. the i.c.c. itself was created as a court of last resort. if national governments are unwilling to unable to try cases in their jurisdiction, the united states and israel do not fall into this category. despite this, the.c.c. prosecutor's statement on the warrant applications contain several allegations that are directlyzeon administration's rt report pursuant to the national security memorandum 20. i have many problems with national security memorandum 20, but this report clely we do noty assess that the israeli is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the

transport or delivery of u.s. humanitarian assistance, end of quote. it also described in significant detail israel's own systems for insuring compliance with the international humanitarian law and for investigating possible violations of inteational and humanitarian law. moreover, comparing a legitimate democratically elected officials war that they didn't ask for and that they didn't start to hamas terrorists only highlights the complete disconnect of this politicized international body. this is a war hamas started. israel was forced into a war they didn't want. but have no choice to finish itt infinitely worse because they use human shields. they hide behind and control in command centers.

they hide behind hospitals and schools. and they put civilians in harm's way. there are many, many unspeakable tragedies in this war. i've seen videos of hamas terrorists killing innocent palestinians simply trying to h. hamas does not care about civilian casualties. their only objective is to remove israel from the map. israel is fighting in what is most most difficult urban warfare landscape that has ever existed, and they've done everything in their power to limit■q casualties and facilitae humanitarian aid. but the same cannot be said of hamas. it is absolutely outras the i.c.c. to be pursuing arrest warrants against israeli officials and announcing it on cnn before a decision has even been made. mr. meeks and i were prosecutors. we would never announce arrest

warrants on national television on cnn. failing to act here in the congress would make us complicit withhe i.c.c.'s illegitimate actions. we must not stay silent. we must stand with our allies. and if the i.c.c. is advancing a case against an americant party to the i.c.c., this bill will impose sanctions on i.c.c. officials and others supportinge that case. we need to act because this case is already advancing much faster than expected. even the i.c.c.'s own staff do not know the warrant applications would be going kuea're advancing this bill straight to the floor. mr. speaker, it's time to stand up to international bullies who seek to undermine international law under the false pretext of

justice. what happens if americans are next? as they looked at americans on the battlefldnistan. this sets a dangerous precedent where w officials. tomorrow it could be american. . speaker, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> too often in our foreign policy, we turn to sanctions as a first choice rather than a tool of last resort. mr. meeks: sanctions should not be our only go-to punishment to express our displeasure, because they have real consequences.

that being said, i do want to say, as we do on the foreign affairs committee, trying to work together and try to get the bipartisan. so i want to thank the chairman. unfortunately, we could not get to a final conclusion. as i review the bill we're about to vote on today, the bill that is on the floor, in this instance this bill would have a chilling effect on the i.c.c. as an institution and hamper the court's efforts to prosecute serious atrocities that have been perpetrated in many places around the world, from ukraine to uganda. we can't forget that the i.c.c. is a venue through which we can

hold accountable bad actors. i know many of us celebrated in march of last year when the i.c.c. judges issued arrest warrants for vladimir putin and other senior russian officials for abducting thousands of ukrainiachildren. in fact, in the wake renewed war in ukraine, congress passed legislation to enable the united states to provide financial support too and share information with the i.c.c. to investigate and prosecute putin at his regime for the heinous crimes. put simply, we leaned in on engagement with the i.c.c. because it was in our interests and because it■ reinforces the prosecute that the justice we want to see wi■1ll be delivered.

let me also be clear that president biden has said from the very start that the i.c.c. prosecuts last month forainst israeli leaders is clearly outrageous. in doing so, the i.c.c. prosecutor has attempted to equate the decisions made by israel's democratically elected leaders to those of hamas terrorist leaders. there is no, and i repeat, there is no moral or legal equivalence here. this is something that, and one reason why we tried to work together and think we should continue to figure out a way we can get to a bipartisan deal. mccaul and i, chairman ml

and i will continue to do that. furthermore, let me just say that the united states has since its inception opposed and we continue to oppose in the strongest investigation as an overreach into a matter for which the i.c.c. has no jurisdiction. that said, if our goal is to change the i.c.c.'s actions, sanctions is the wrong t■iool. they're simply not going to work here. they're not going to convince the i.c.c. to back down and could, in fact, push the i.c.c. to pursue this case even with greater vigor. this bill will bluntly curtail the united states' ability to

court to advance our interests in supporting justice and accountability and those processes. and critically, to share relevant information that can impact the outcome, and the sanctions will have a chilling effect on states who wouldcj otherwise be inclined to align with us inen suring the court delivers justice and avoids overreach. only that, this particular gislation is overly broad. it would sanction our allies around the globe who support the i.c.c. through resources and pers■fonnel. further proposed texts, anyone who has offered financial, material assistance to the courtll be, shall be sanctioned.

so let's look at what that means when we break it down. if you go to a list of the largest funders of the i.c.c. and a list of america's closest allies in europe and in asia, they would be virtually identical. the u.k., france, germany, italy, and japan. as this legislation is drafted, the ad would need to be sanctioned for providing material .s would also need to be sanctioned for appropriating funds to go to the i.c.c. i.c. interpartary tra t europe couldecom a sanctionablectity. is sction mare or

malonima maloni smart policy? that's absurd on its face to me. this bill would further the ovef membfrpproximately 100 countries at the court. from judges and prosecutors, tog nationals of close u.s. who coly work to prosecute war criminals around the globe. the language i so broad that even a cafeteria worker or janitor, even thei families could be construed as having supported or materially assisted in these prosecutions by providing services to the i.c.c. i.c.c. relies on american companies

productivity software and other gold standard tech products. all of these american companies would be banned from doing such business with the i.c.c. and the chinese competitors could rush to fill that gap. do we want the i.c.c. reliant on the p.r.c. for its email services? or its cloud storage? do we want to send a message to all other international organizations that america could pull the plug on their business services at any moment? this will undermine america's interests and bolster those of china and russia. the broad sanctions language included this legislation would also affect many innocent dutch companies and nationals. the same sanctions risk would apply to companies from the u.s. allies and partner countries who

provide services to the i.c.c. it is unclear how sanctioning a close ally financial institutions and small business will aid our foreign policy interests. so, this path that's been chosen not of leaning in, not of engaging the court, and its supporters to ensure just outcomes, but just punitive action. it is dangerous for our national security. behind the scenes diplomacy and partners supported is far more likely to yield a result that is better than a blunt force approach. i'm sending a message of concern

to the i.c.c. for seeking arrest warrants for israeli officials, but we need to do it in another way. therefore, i must oppose this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fr texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. let me just say to my dear friend, mr. meeks, that as he knows, we worked on a version of this bill, and we came to a bipartisan resolution that ultimately was rejected by the white house. i think that's unfortunate. i also just state that the alarms that this bill harms u.s. alliances i think are overstated. the bill's sanctions are triggered by presidential determination that a particular foreign person has supported illicit

protected persons. that is against american citizens or the citizens of u.s. i.c.c.'s jurisdiction.bmitted to furthermore, this is the most important point, this bill, we did this at the behest of the opposing -- to the democrats, gives the president the ability to waive these sanctions. with that i now yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, i want to thank him for working so closely not only with me, with you with -- but with the foreign affairs committee. mr. roy: i thank the speaker. i thank my friend from texas, the chairman. i want to thank the ranking member and his staff, the entire staff of the foreign affairs committee, for their diligent work on this. working all last week, through the weekend. andations. on this one i think the tone it's important to that there is significant bipartisan agreement that we need to take action. to stand with one voice in this

country, the united states of sl to the -- not just the international criminal court, but the international community generally. that we cannot stand by and allow the court to do what it's doing because let's remember why we are here. we are here because the international criminal court is. it merits letting that just sit out here and marinate for a second that that's what we are dealing with. the prime minister of israel, engaged in defending his country after the horrific october 7 attacks, which we have talked about in great detail on this floor.■# the assaults, the rapes, the beheadings of babies, killing of innocent civilians. what happened and what occurred on our jewish brotherser

brothers and sisters and others in israel on october 7 and israel is responding to that. and taking the attack to hamas. we recognize the difficulty of that. of hamas being fully intertwined with the civilians in gaza. the steps that israel is taking to send text messages, drop 15 million leaflets or more. leave voice messages advanced n. do what they can to make sure that there's protections for civilians. keeping the overall civilian to combatant casualty below historic norms by most accounts, including third party observation. now looking into rafah. t international community is saying you can't go into rafah, you go into rafah and find 50-plus tunnels. i think now 75 tunnels where we know they were being used to carry out, israel is under assault right now with missiles being fired

with regularity. by hamas. into israel. this is israel. this is not some random entis i. our close ally. and you have a body to which we do -- have no sovereignty for this country, that is being given to the international are not a party to it. we are not undermining our sovereignty. we are not going to do that as america. that's what this stands for. that's what this says. this says that we should not be allowing the international criminal court to not just go after the israeli prime minister, but the door that that opens to go after our own service members. to go after our own generals. to go after america's interest. what happens here is going to be coming at us and our country. that's why it's important to speak with one voice with authority, with force. we have been working in good

faith. agn i want to compliment the ranking member and democrat staff. again, we are working through the weekend. i believe there were amendments that we could have agreed to, changes, that would have had bipartisan support here. i understand that the white house did not agree to that. that's a shame. i think the white house made the wrong call. that's plain and simple. i think the white house got this wrong. and i just hope that we will be here today united as a body putting aside partisan differences and that we will move this bill it to the senate where it can work its will. if the senate wants to modify it and send it to the house, address any of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues on my side of the aisle or this side, the senate can do that and send it back to us and send a product to the president. we need to address this and address it quickly. if we allow this to pester, we -- fester, we undermine or own national security, and at this moment in time we give

credence and power to an international body to which we are not a party, to which israel is not a party, and that is being used to flex politicalnisn country. that we cannot stand for. i hope that my colleagues will support h.r. 8282. with that i yield back to the distinguished chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman illinois, representative ramirez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. ramirez: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in■xnh opposition of h.r. 8282. i realize a pattern here. when my republican colleagues can't legislate they decide they are going to score points in three primary tools. fear mongering, punishing, and silencing. i want to break down a little bit fear mongering, the bill invokes the protection of the united states military personnel. let me clarify, the u.s.

military subject to the i.c.c. because the united states is not a party to the statute which i find eful. funnishing because the bill would impose sanctions against anyone who aids the i. c.c. in investigating and detaining anse who has not consented to the court's jurisdiction. let me clarify, let me do a point of clarification. theeaponize sanctions against major u.s. allies who support the court. allies like germany, france, u.k., japan, and others. silencing? if enacted no funding could be used for the international criminal court. another point of clarification. those efforts would weaken the i.c.c. and that makes us all less safe. hy the i.c.c. exists as defined by the rome statute. mindful that during the century billions of children, women, and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocity that

deeply shocked the conscience of humanity. it recognize such great crimes letten the peace, security, and well-being of the world and determined to put to impunity for the perpetrators oe to the prevention of such crimes. i stand in opposition of this resolution because we need the i.c.c. and the last 241 days, thousands have been victims of unimaginable atrocities, and netanyahu's violations of international law have threatened the peace of the world. i'm determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes. i urge a no vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from california,■& the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sherman: the i.c.c.'s ruling

is outrageous. the organization has dishonored itself. and i would have been happy to co-sponsor a resolution denouncing and sanctioning. i would have -- i wanted to co-sponsor this bill when i read the title. unfortunately, i read the bill. once again we have a drafted, poorly thought out messaging bill that hasn't gone process, that hasn't gone through regular order, thaha through, no amendments are allowed on the floor, and the author defends it on the theory that, well, if the bill is poorly drafted, the senate will save us and correct it.

we cannot vote yes on a bill today that is this infirm and count on the senate to clean it up.gain the republican party has decided to hurt israel for its own benefit israel has one -- benefit. israel has one friend in the world, the united states. israel has survived because it has had the support of both political parties. 76 years of israel's existence, democrats half the power in this city. republicans about half the time have been in control. if israel's to survive another 76 years, it will ed the support of both parties. yet the purpose of this bill, which masquerades as pro-israel, like so many bills' brought up s messaging bills, is to drive a party and israel. for the benefit not of israel but the republican party. the decision of the prosecutor to seek arresturt

warrants a■ígain i outrageous pf everything anyone who has dedicated himself to human rights holds dear, as i have for 28 years on the foreign affairs committee. it is a perversion of international justice system. it is putrid. it dishonors those who originally thought the international crime cal court would be a good idea. it unders and it is based on a hatred so i'd like to vote for this resolution, but unfortunately i read it. now, the ranking member has pointed out a number of problems. i'll point out a couple as well. the key, and you cannot vote foa 1-a, which imposes sanctions on anyone who an -- assists an effort

to investigate. what does that mean? it ides those who provide exculpatory investigation. i'm sure many patriotic■f■asraes and well meaning americans provided information to the i.c.c. as chip roy did when he gave his speech, detailing why that action is wrongful on the law and the facts. but you assist an investigation when you provide exumer to is subject to sanctions. mr. roy won bed because he's a u.s. citizen, but anyone else who contacted th court and said here's what you're doing is wrong will be subject to the sanctions. punishes the spouses and familyunishes the even the estranged family members. you may feel that your son has

gone wrong by iolving the i.c.c. you get sanctioned for what that son does. and particularly i want to focus on spouses. the bill punishe said, spouses and family members, even those spouses and family members who oppose the ruling. so all last weekyo this poster up here. all last week, the republican party told us that the decision to fly an insuctionist flag at their two houses should not be ed to the judge because it was done by his spouse. today, one week later, they come back and say that when a judge does something wrong, we're going to impart it to so which is it? are jutting and their spouses responsible -- are justices and their spouses responsible for each other's actions or not?

some republicans are going to have to explain this to me. now, of course, this is even different and more extreme. justice alito lived in the houses. justice alito did not disclaim the message of these flags. and justice alito is not estranged from his wife. yet someone who ione at the i.ct happens to be related, bject to. again, how can you defend an appeal to heaven under those circumstances? the attention of the world should be on the incredible hypocrisy on the international criminal court, which failed to issue rulings about driving the rohingya from their home, about the complete depopulation of the republic of artsac, who the entire country was driven into exile in ethnic cleansing.

it failed to issue a ruling with ethiia 600,000 people died. this legitimate court failed to ash a ruling on the azitis, who watched thousands of azitis being butchered and burned alive and subject to sexual slavery. instead of focusing our attention on the hypocrisy of the court, we're focused on thi. i tried, i suggested to the author, every suggestion i made rejected. this was not an attempt to pass a pro-israel bill. the speaker pro tempore: give the gentleman another 30 seconds. the gentleman is recognized. mr. sherman: this was not aisra. instead it was poorly drafted, rushed to the floor, strictly part an messaging bill that distracts the world from the hypocrisy of the i.c.c. and

focuses us instead on a supposedly pro-israel, perform aactively pro-israel republicann we'll have to work later to demonstrate how wrong and how putrid the action of the i.c.c. is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: i have no further witnesses and ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. mccaul: i think it's important for notice say, mr. speaker, and at the outset that i really do appreciate the efforts that were made to make . mr. meeks: trying to get to good in a bipartisan way is always my goal on the foreign affairs committee, and chairman mccaul has indeed been a partner in

that effort. and i thank him. that said, the bill as it is on the floor, i can't support. because i believe it will be counter productive to our ■9 our relations with allies and undermine american global leadership. unfortunately, i believe the bill on the floor is exactly what it does. sanction of the court and all those who support will backfire badly on us, and i must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. first, i'm extremely troubled by

how the i.c.c. has acted, and i think■á everybody in this body should be, both republican and democrats, americans should be concerned. more than 20 years ago, our predecessors had the foresight to know full well that e i.c.c. would one day try to target democratic countries that had their own robust judicial systems, overwhichma the i.c.c. has no legitimate jurisdiction. in 2020, the i.c.c. decided to authorize a formal investigation into alleged war crimes in afghanistan. the large bipartisan group of house members wrote to the secretary of state at that time in response, with strong concerns stati, quote, both democrat and republican administrations have refused to join the court in part because they feared its politization and misuse. and at's e what's happened here today.

actions, and by seeking warrants for israel's prime minister and defense minister they've cheapened this court'st for what it really is, an illegitimate court that puts politics over justice. today it's israel, mr. speaker. but tomorrow it could be the united states. and we must sanction those who deliberately abuse their power for political gain. their■j actions seek to undermie israel and its people who are in a fight for their very existence. we must act not only to protect israel, but these unelect international bureaucrats. hif they willingly seek tompon our allies or the united states, clear message, you're neither welcome nor wanted on american soil. america always stands behind our allies and their legitimate governments, and if i can just say to my dear friend,

mr. meeks, and to our colleagues in the house, we did work very hard to get to a bipartisan agreement,san bill that the speaker approved and mr. jeffries approved. but when it went to the white house it was rejected. so i always think, and i think mr. meeks agrees, that we're always strongest, particularlyik with one voice, as one nation. in this case to the i.c.c. and to the judges. a partisan messaging bilwa my ii believe it was mr. meeks' intention. but that's where we are right now. i remain forever hopeful and optimistic, however, that during the process and during the course of this legislation that we can still get back to we tald

the senate or perhaps mr. meeks and i can mark up that bipartisan bill on our committee on the foreign affairs committee, and then get it to the house floor, where we can then proceed with regular in a bipartisan fashionr this n, best for israel, and best detere international criminal court. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote yes onúo■

i don't know about you but i am in all of today. i feel like i have learned a lot of the world we are thinking about and i have great hope. we are going to close■k with the last two moments and i promise you you're going to be glad that you are sitting here. because what today is all about is about hope. if i'm not were working the greatest joy in my life is to spend